I sat down last night and typed away for a long time letting loose about my thoughts and feelings regarding the rezone. I still have a lot of feeling and thoughts about the rezone. Part of me is angry and frustrated - because I feel like I haven't been heard. Members of the Council have not adequately addressed my very legitimate and reasonable concerns about the rezone and the proposed luxury development. And there are many people who feel like me - who feel that the Council has more or less overlooked their concerns, or looked down on them in a condescending manner. Even the Councilmembers who voted against the rezone did not wholly encompass the great body of wisdom in the oppositional arguments as they have been presented so patiently, repeatedly and consistently over the past few months. And certainly, the oppositional faction on the Council did nothing, or next to nothing, (at least publicly) to counter or rebut the 4 Councilmembers who seemed so determined to plow ahead in the face of such overwhelming oppositional reason and sentiment. How can the Council proceed without even responding to, much less adequately addressing, the concerns of so many residents of Olympia?

A lot of what I want to say has already been said, most recently and clearly by Janet Blanding in the December issue of WIP. Here's a link to that article: The people of Olympia versus the Olympia City Council : The continuing tug-of-war over the isthmus, and an excerpt:

“It ain’t over until it’s paved over,” declared Bonnie Jacobs of Friends of the Waterfront at a recent citizens forum to save the isthmus. Thought it was a warm, sunny Saturday morning, the Columbia room in the Capitol basement was filled to capacity, standing room only. Event organizers made several trips to the cafeteria to retrieve more chairs to accommodate the nearly 180 people who wanted to know what could be done to stop the unpopular proposed rezone of the isthmus. Among the crowd was newly re-elected Senator Karen Fraser. Sponsored by the Friends of the Waterfront, 20/20 Vision Olympia, the Capitol Park Foundation and the League of Women Voters, the forum featured a number of speakers, who addressed topics ranging from the status of the citizen initiative, to the impact of the rezone on the proposed Heritage Center on the Capitol Campus, to the possible course of litigation should the rezone be approved by the Olympia City Council.

“The Bottom of the Third”

“This issue is in the bottom of the third inning,” said Jerry Reilly, Chair of the Capitol Park Foundation, when he spoke at the citizens forum. “It has a long, long way to go.” Former Olympia Mayor and Friends of the Waterfront founding member Bob Jacobs outlined the steps required to rezone the isthmus: A Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a height amendment, and an amendment to the Shoreline Master program. Thad Curtz gave a brief overview of what threatens to be a very long process of litigation, which may ultimately involve the Department of Ecology, the Growth Management Hearings Board, the Court of Appeals, the State Supreme Court, and the Shoreline Hearings Board. “Should this whole scenario play out,” says Curtz, “it would be four to six years before anything could be built on the isthmus.” And that’s if all rulings are in favor of the developer.
[...]

I am also overwhelmed. I am overwhelmed not only by the Isthmus issue, but also by the other amendments and the whole process - by the seemingly esoteric decision making and deliberation process of the council - by their inadequate attention to the legitimate concerns of residents. I am overwhelmed with feeling shock and awe - by these various Comprehensive Plan Amendments - only one of which has consumed my attention so much. I feel like I have been distracted while other amendments have passed by without so much more than a whisper of comment (about zoning issues in re: environmental degradation.) I wonder what the hell is going on with the other ones. Are they allowing clear-cutting and development of tract homes with two and three car garages, or some other harm to the environment?

I do want to address at least one point here, which was already covered quite expertly in Blanding's recent WIP article. That issue is the intent of the development and the developer and the impact of rezoning on park feasibility.

Some Councilmembers have consistently and repeatedly stated their belief that the rezone, if passed, will not affect the feasibility of developing a park, as envisioned by the parks foundation, and the 5,000 signatories of the petition. To this I say: hogwash. The rezone will enable a development that would stand to generate significant financial profit for the developer and associated interests. The land value will increase commensurate with the newly zoned potential use. Say it ain't so? The only way that it might not be so is with a very strict developer's agreement. But even that might not prevent the land from being auctioned off at a financial profit to the owner, based on the new land-use regulation.

Park feasibility and the rezone are inextricably interconnected. We cannot have a park, as envisioned by the petitioners, simultaneous with a super-structure condo development. This is not lack of compromise - this is the will of the signatories to the petition, who the City has now entered into contract with presumably in good faith. The feasibility of the park will be harmed by rezone approval. The land value is more than likely to increase - in other words, it will be more difficult to purchase the land for purposes of building a park after the rezone passes - thusly harming the potential for a park.

To say it again in different words: approval of the rezone will constitute a harm and a threat to the feasibility of developing a park.

So, Why did Triway Enterprises Propose a the Rezone?

Was it solely out of the goodness of heart? Tri Vo attested (at the Planning Commission Hearing and the Council Public Hearing) to as much. Do you believe him? —I don't (more reasons below). I believe the proposal was made no so much out of the goodness of heart, as out of a desire to take advantage of the potential rezone, to reap financial profit and material benefit. This supposed material gain does not stand only for Triway Enterprises, but also for a variety of associated interests and industries that stand to benefit from the building of these massive juggernaut super-structures. But the public doesn't stand any real benefit to outweigh the harm that these buildings will do to the aesthetic and the psyche of the community. Luxury condos for the rich during a time of increasing homelessness and economic hardship. We shouldn't have to connect the dots on this one, folks.

The rezone and luxury condos do not represent real progress. Instead, they represent government doing the business of financial elite- at the sake of the public interest.

This project doesn't represent environmental stewardship. It represents the taking of an area away from the public and sequestering it away for the use of only a small but powerful subset of the population. Government is supposed to protect against such behavior.

So, can the rezone proposal be understood as originating from the goodness of heart? I don't think so. Based on my personal experience and on reports of the behavior of Triway Enterprises (ref: article by Janet Blanding on Coopercrest and the clear"cut and run"). This is not to mention my personal experience with Tri Vo, which includes an occasion during the Planning Commission Hearing when I was providing oral public testimony. Mr. Vo was sitting near the podium where I was speaking, and he was making intimidating noises, what sounded like snorting noises. It felt very unfriendly to me. This is not the behavior of someone I am likely to trust anytime soon.

Goodness of heart or desire for financial profit? A little of both? How much of each? What's your personal experience with Triway? Good guys, nice and amiable? Have you made a complaint about Triway? How were you treated? Does Triway leave something to be desired?

Is there a conflict of interest between the rezone and the park feasibility analysis?

At the least, it would make sense to delay a decision on the rezone solely on the basis that the Council has not adequately addressed the varietal concerns expressed by members of the public. We need to have another public hearing - because it seems that the Council didn't really hear us as a result of the first two.

Here's an idea of how the public hearing could be conducted:

• A round-table where everyone is given a chance to speak and to be heard.
• Participants could pass the mic and share one reason at a time why they are for rezoning, until everyone has shared all the reasons that they want to.
• Then the mic would be passed around again allowing everyone to share, one reason at a time, all the reasons that they are against the rezone, to keep going until everyone has shared all the reasons that they want.
• Do the same regarding the park feasibility analysis. Write down and record all the thoughts.
• Then have a facilitated panel community discussion to include members of all sides of the argument.
• Perhaps two or three people from each side could be represented. Sides being: Councilmembers, pro-rezone, anti-rezone, pro-park, anti-park.

One of the biggest reasons (biggest for me) to delay or deny the isthmus rezone amendment right now is that the Council has not adequately addressed, or in some cases has not even begun to address, the variety of diverse arguments that have so adamantly and eloquently been brought forth in opposition to the rezone.

Berd